新加坡文獻館全文刊登林福壽醫生
對李光耀政權的血淚控訴
（中英對照）
“ 近來你們經常聽到有人說當你年青時你是個理想主義者，當你年長后你是個現實主義者。這些都是胡說八道的垃圾廢話，是那些要不是己經失去理想，就是那些已經把理想出賣了的自私自利者。……
“一個生命如果沒有了信念，沒有了理想主義，那只是一個毫無意義的生存，而我相信你們中的許多人會同意，一個人的生命意義要遠比這種情況來得更精彩。”——林福壽
1963年2月2日的冷藏行動中被無理逮捕和關押了近20年，獲釋后又沉默了20多年的新加坡反殖民主斗士林福壽醫生，終于在去年11月14日一個新書推介會上，對李光耀政權對他本人以及所有的反殖愛國民主斗士進行的殘酷迫害以及非人折磨和虐待發出了有力的控訴。
無可辯駁的事實證明，李光耀對新加坡爭取獨立民主反殖人士和左派運動的鎮壓和迫害，比起其殖民主子要厲害得多， 殘酷得多，而且做起來是“越來越厚顏無恥”了。
無可辯駁的事實同時也證明，所謂新加坡的左派運動和社陣的失敗和沒落，是1966年后受毛主義和“文革”影響造成的，所謂（李光耀的人民行動黨）在左派退出歷史舞臺的過程中沒有欠下一筆血債，……沒有一起肉體折磨的案例，……所有案例都依法解決……等等論調，實在不堪一駁。
很明顯，說這些話的所謂學者，不是真的想研究新加坡的左派運動和社陣的歷史，也不是真的想研究新加坡的政黨活動，以及李光耀及其人民行動黨如何爬上臺，如何維持其統治地位，如何推行其政治經濟文化和外交政策的。
他們本是依附于西方國家，靠其基金培養，在美國活動或大學任教，以誣蔑、詆毀中國人民的偉大領袖毛澤東和打倒共產黨為己任的《北京之春》反共人士。
難怪這些所謂學者一方面企圖通過他們的學術研究來詆毀辱罵毛澤東和毛澤東思想，丑化文化大革命，另一方面，則是企圖通過他們的學術研究來為李光耀及其人民行動黨上臺五十多年間鎮壓和迫害反殖愛國民主人士的累累罪行，涂脂抹粉，甚至不惜以偏概全，指鹿為馬，顛倒黑白了。
讀者如若不信，不妨上互聯網站查找這些所謂學者的“學術研究成果”來看一看究竟是什么貨色，不妨對比一下林福壽醫生這篇血淚控訴，以及《烏有之鄉》刊載過的有關他的戰友賽扎哈利、傅樹介、陳蒙鶴等文章里揭露的事實真相。
以下是刊登于2010年8月7日新加坡文獻館的《林福壽醫生演說稿全文》：
07/08/10
作者/來源：林福壽醫生 http://barnyardchorus.blogspot.com
新加坡文獻館譯
前言：2009年11月14日，林福壽醫生在一個新書發布會上演說，這是他在獲釋多年后的首次公開談話。這一天，恰巧是美國總統奧巴馬到訪新加坡出度（席）亞太經合組織首腦會議。
演說稿全文：
我對這本書所作出的貢獻是不多的。因為我的健康欠佳，我的體力局限了我的寫作。這些主要是我在1972年期間即被囚禁9年后所發表過的聲明書。
我們都知道，我是在1963年2月2日在一場冷藏行動中被逮捕，我是在近20年囚禁之后被釋放，是當年遭逮捕眾人中的最后一名獲釋者。這些聲明主要是表白我對被囚禁事件的觀感立場。
在經過了9年的囚禁后，他們要我發表一篇聲明書，首先，要表達支持所謂的新加坡民主體制，其二，要表示放棄從事政治。我告訴他們，這兩個要求是相互矛盾的，因為如果確實是有國會民主，我就沒有必為要放棄政治話動。他們于是說：‘你必須講一些悔悟的話，要不然李光耀會很沒有面子。’
對我而言，這并非是一個自尊的問題，而是一個原則的問題。
首先，如果一個人是為了要挽救自己的面子而去剝奪其他人的基本權力，那么，這個面子是不值得去挽救的。要知道，最主要的民主權力就是新加坡人的基本憲法權力。任何人的這一個權力都不能夠被剝奪，然后向他勒索去敲詐一份表示悔悟和懺悔的聲明書。這整個事件為的是要發表一份悔過聲明書，我斷然拒絕這個要求。
之后，聲明書事件的過后，我又被囚禁了另外的近10個年頭。因此，總共是19年又8個月，這遠比一個無期徒刑來得更長。無期徒刑犯獲得1/3減刑后，在囚禁13年后獲釋。但是，我是在沒有罪狀，沒有法庭審訊的情況下卻要遭受比無期徒刑犯更長的囚禁。
最近有一些雜七雜八的有關政治拘留人士有權向咨詢委員會進行上訴的言論。我要告訴你們我的一些有關這個咨詢委員會的經驗。
在囚禁了約1年過后，在一個下午的4點鐘，我被召喚到監獄的大門，那兒有一份通告告示我會在隔天出庭會見咨詢委員會，他們給了我兩張全頁的所謂罪狀單。我告訴他們我要保留這些罪狀單以便我在明天出庭時使用。他們說：‘不行，你不可以保留它，在你讀完后我們要把它收回’。
我告訴他們我要把這件事通知我的律師，他們說，‘不可以，你有權力去通知你的律師，但是你現在不可以打電話給他’，我回應說：‘這樣的話，我要如何去通知我的律師？’他說：‘這就是法律’。
于是第二天早上我被拷上手銬帶往最高法庭出席由三人組成咨詢委員會的開庭聽審。一名法官，他是Judge Winslow以及另外兩人。一人是一位叫什么Elias的，我猜想他是名律師，以及另一名華人紳士，但我忘了他的名字叫什么。
看看這些所謂的罪狀單，上面有著許多空空的留白，我問Judge Winslow這些留白有著什么的意識（思）？他說：‘唉呀，這些就是罪狀，由于這些都是非常敏感的內容，所以只可以讓咨詢委員會知道，但你不可以知道’。
我說：‘天底下豈有這樣的事，不知道自己的罪狀又如何去進行辯護？’，我向他請教如何是好，他聳聳肩膀要說話，我于是質問：‘這豈不是在開司法的玩笑’。他回應說：‘這就是法律’。
你看，整個事件就是一場司法鬧劇。我的意識（思）是，這真是令人難以置信的，竟然會有人見證了這般的對所謂的司法進行嘲弄。在現實上，把一名高等法院的法官擺上咨詢委員會的主席位置，會給于公眾一種印象，以為這是一種判決，里頭有著公平正義。我于是告訴他，如果我是名高院法官，我是不會為了讓人信服這種嘲弄場合而出席。
然后，這名Elias警告我說這是蔑視法庭的尊嚴。我對蔑視法庭的說法感到高興，因為我已經被囚禁在牢房里，這種告誡對我而言是沒有什么分別的。
順便一提，在我的20年囚禁生活里，我曾被關押在新加坡各處的全部牢房里，除了歸女監獄之外。
結果，那位法官說，‘不必，不必，讓這位醫生說他想要說的話，這里頭并沒有蔑視法庭的一回事’。于是我用了3個小時的時間逐一的對全部的所謂罪狀提出反駁。其中一條罪狀是虛構的，我被指控為8名華惹誹謗事件的學生之一，我說：‘真實的情況是，我并沒有身為這8位學生之一的殊榮，事實上，我覺得能夠被看成是當中一員就是件值得榮幸之事，但是，我并非8人中的一人。當時這8名學生在無答辯情況下獲得無罪釋放，而其辯護律師就是李光耀本人，他不就是如今囚禁我的那一個人？’
他說：‘這就是法律。’
所有的一切都是法律。
你們最近常聽到所謂的依法執法。看看現時的內部安全法令，這條法令是在嘲諷依法執法的概念。這條法令是在依法執法的范疇之外。一旦你在內部安全法令下被拘捕，你就完全無法尋求任何法律上的庇護。
我曾兩次嘗試尋求人身保護令的庇護。其中一回是由于政府的錯誤讓我從技術上取得了勝利 – 他們并沒有簽署我的拘捕令。這文件原本應該是由部長簽署，但卻讓一名公務員去代簽。因此，在這一回里頭法庭因為技術性錯誤而釋放我。當我獲釋時，內政部在女皇鎮的監獄門口等候著我。我在獲釋后的一分鐘又再遭到逮捕。這是一個開玩笑的釋放。為了這件人身保護令的事，我遭受到懲罰，把我關進所有囚禁中心里最聲名狼藉的囚禁所，中央警署的總部。
這個地方根本不適合即便是用來關畜生，更何況是人類。這個地方很陰深，臭氣熏天，嚴重缺乏空氣流通，人在里頭很難呆過24個小時，但是，我卻每天24個小時的被關押在里邊。這個地方到處是爬蟲，我有許許多多的爬蟲相伴，沒有閱讀的書籍，其光線陰暗到我無法看見我手上的紋理。于是我們5個人進行絕食，我因潰瘍出血而被轉送醫院。那里是有著所謂的人身保護令，可以冒險的去嘗試使用它，你會遭受嚴峻的懲罰。
我第二次嘗試人身保護令是當他們要強迫我去從事手工粗活。那時是1972年。他們說所有拘留者都必須去干體力勞工，這是改過自新的訓練計劃之一。我被指派從事木工，那位警監告訴我說，這樣做會對身位（為）醫生的你有益，你的手會變得更為敏捷。于是，我回應：‘你沒有進入一所醫學院的資格，而你現在卻是在告訴一名醫生，什么樣的畢業后專業訓練會對他有益。你是否太過高估了你自己的能耐？他說：‘這就是法律，你每天必須獲得8分錢的酬勞。’于是我們進行了絕食，我們群中的一些人進行了3個月的絕食，為的是要挫折他們把我們當成刑事罪犯去進行勞改。我在進行了3個星期的絕食行動后，他們進來對我說，‘那好吧，我們免除你的勞改。’
那一群囚禁在明月彎的女性拘留者進行了130天的絕食，她們遭受強迫喂食。她們當中有些人被用吸管抽入食道喂奶后引發嘔吐。警監下令獄警把一位嘔吐后女拘留者抬走，并用她的褲子去拖地。就是用這樣的方法去對待拘留者。當然的，這些都遭到報章的隱瞞掩蓋，但是這些就是我們的遭遇和經歷。
我們都經歷過單獨囚禁。根據李光耀本人的說法，單獨囚禁是一種最惡劣的酷刑。讓我向你們讀出李光耀所說的有關單獨囚禁‘給予一個人的最大懲罰是完全隔絕在地牢里，陰暗，完全沒有任何的生命激勵因素。這是一個真實的酷刑。’李光耀，2008年1月。
雖然他知道這是一種真實的酷刑，他毫不感到負疚的對所有的拘留者使用這種真實的酷刑，無一幸免。我們都要經歷這種真實的酷刑，并非只是一天，兩天，而是6個月。要知道，在法令下，是有一定的保護即使是對刑事罪犯行使這種酷刑。一個刑事犯一旦違反了監獄的條例會遭受到單獨囚禁，但為期不可長于2個星期，因為這將會帶來嚴重的精神健康上的損傷。然而，對政治拘留者而言，他們並不受到保護。
那位李有成，南洋商報的總經理，被單獨囚禁，不是一次而是兩次，他堅強的挨過了這些真實的酷刑。T T 拉惹，一名律師，他被囚禁兩年半，其中兩次單獨囚禁6個月。賽、扎哈利的17年囚禁里共經歷4次的單獨囚禁。我們都引以為榮，我們雖然面對千辛萬苦的艱難，我們沒有退縮。我們站穩我們的立場，我們保住了自已的尊嚴。
今天，他們呼吁我們要有雅量。寬宏大量是什么意思？只有那些經歷過苦難折磨，才可享有道德的權利，道德的地位去展現雅量風范，不是那群犯錯者。做錯事的人要尋求寬恕，如果他們承認犯錯，就要道歉。並不是由酷刑下的受害者去乞求寬恕。我們是那群具有雅量風范的人，我們可以寬宏大量，如果犯錯者承認錯失，并且尋求寬恕。
1972年我通過妻子Beatrice Chen發表了一份聲明書，當然的，報章都壓抑了這件事，但學生組織卻廣泛傳閱 – 我說正確的解決方法是在沒有條件要求的情況下釋放我們。無條件釋放。此外，你要對我們的長期囚禁作出賠償并進行道歉。我說我愿意放棄這最后的兩項條件，既賠償和道歉，因為我不相信像李光耀這樣自大傲慢的人會輕易的讓步。對于無條件釋放的一項 – 我們的立場是堅定的。我堅持了立場，為此而遭受了20年的苦難。這就是我為了我們的尊嚴而付出的代價。
在新加坡，我們有一個現象，那就是政府領袖自認有廉正，這廉正是用全世界最高的薪金去支撐，然而，對政治上的異議者和拘留者而言，政府領袖的廉正卻是以全世界最長的監獄囚禁去維持。這兩種廉正是不同的，就好象天和地的比較。有什么理由需要別人作出如此的犧牲去維護他的廉正與信仰？政府為什么要以如此的高薪去酬勞自已。這是當今新加坡政治現實里的一個不道德層面。
看吧，無審訊的囚禁是反和平的行為，這是一祌暴力行為。他們并非在白天的時候禮貌的投帖拜訪。他們在凌晨時分的4點鐘。這個時段里一般正常的人都在睡眠，但卻是政治恐怖分子與獨裁者進行勾當的時機。一旦你被逮捕，你就面對各種名樣的精神以至于身體上的酷刑。這並非單獨發生者（在）1963年的那一批拘留者，這也發生在其他不同時期的拘留者：如1972年，甚至于遲至1987年。當張素蘭和她的那一批所謂的馬克思主義拘留者也同樣面對精神與內體上的刑罰。當這幾位女律師在獲釋后發表了她們遭受虐待的聲明書之后，它（他）們又再遭逮捕並被迫收回他們的指責。
那門子的依法執法會允許起訴的原告者受到被指控的被告政府的懲罰，還被迫收回他們的指控？這不就是一個上下顛倒的司法體系嗎？看啊，對著這樣的一種情況，律師公會卻連一句話也不敢說。之所以變得如此無能是因為律師公會在1987年遭到了他們的修理。
現在，傅樹介寫了一篇有關冷藏行動的好文章，里邊，他揭露了好些從英國檔案局解密的文件，展示了英國當局如何與李光耀密謀的共同合作在1963年大選之前摧毀反對黨陣營。合并的整個目的就是在1963年大選之前毀滅反對黨。
到了今天，那個人民行動黨要站立在道德的據（制）高點，要求其他國家講求人權，甚至于向緬甸要求釋放他們的政治拘留者。但是，他們究競有什么可以站立的道德據（制）高點去提出這種要求？翻開他們的過往記錄來看，他們所站立著的座墩里頭充滿了蠕蟲和害蟲。讓他們先去懺悔自已的不光彩人權記錄，之后，你或許才會有道德上的權力去坪（抨）擊別人缺乏人權。
博（傅）樹介也撰寫了本書的最后一章[華惹一代]，有關社會主義的未來。你們之中必然有人會置疑，在俱樂部成立50年后，社會主義到了現今的年代，還會有什么作為。社會主義運動在世界各地遭受到許多的挫折，甚至于失敗，所以有人懷疑這些理論是否還有效用。近期的經濟危機，近日的金融風暴都再次的暴露了資本主義的貪腐與不道德行為，人類應該享受一個比由貪婪與腐蝕支撐著的體系，來得更好的體系。
近來你們經常聽到有人說當你年青時你是個理想主義者，當你年長后你是個現實主義者。這些都是胡說八道的垃圾廢話，是那些要不是己經失去理想，就是那些已經把理想出賣了的自私自利者。一個人不應該讓他自已的理想與信仰消失掉。不論何種情況，他應該更堅持的去鞏固自已的信念。如果這和年齡有關，這只是在表達方式上，對這些理想和信仰有了更多的演繹方式，畢竟他們有經歷過青春年少時的種種體會。一個生命如果沒有了信念，沒有了理想主義，那只是一個毫無意義的生存，而我相信你們中的許多人會同意，一個人的生命意義要遠比這種情況來得更精彩。
謝謝。
原文來源：http://barnyardchorus.blogspot.com/2010/07/transcript-of-dr-lim-hock-siews-speech.html
Ex-political prisoner speaks out in Singapore
Posted on Youtube, 15 November, 2009.
By Singapore Rebel (Martyn See).
Video description: Dr Lim Hock Siew is Singapore’s second longest-held political prisoner.
From the video:
[A founding member of the ruling People’s Action Party, Lim was accused of being a communist and was arrested without trial in 1963, and had his detention prolonged by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew until his release in 1982.]
[On 14th of Nov 2009, Lim made his first post-detention speech in Singapore during a book launch.]
[The day coincided with the arrival of US President Barack Obama in Singapore for the APEC Summit.]
My contribution to this book is very modest. Because of my ill-health, I’ve not been able to write too much. It comprises mainly of a statement which I made when I was in prison in 1972, after 9 years of incarceration.
As you know, I was detained in Coldstore Operation in February the 2nd 1963, and I was the last one to come out from the batch of detainees almost 20 years later. Now this statement mainly stated my stand on my detention.
After 9 years of incarceration, they wanted me to issue a statement to firstly support the so-called democratic system of Singapore, and secondly to renounce politics. I told them that these two demands are self-contradictory, because if there is parliamentary democracy, then I don’t have to give up politics. So they said, “You must say something to show repentance other wise Lee Kuan Yew will lose face.”
For me this not a question of pride, it’s a question of principle.
In the first place, if a person has to save his face by depriving somebody else of his fundamental rights, then that’s not a face that’s worth saving. So the, the main democratic right is a fundamental constitutional right of the people of Singapore. And no one should be deprived of their right, and held ransom to extort statements of repentance and contrition. So the whole thing bogged down to having to issue a statement of repentance, which I refused.
Subsequently, I was detained for another almost 10 years, after that statement was issued. So a total of 19 years and eight months, longer than a life sentence. Life sentences will be released after 13 years, after the initial one-third remission, but for no charge, no trial, I was detained for longer than life sentences.
A lot of hullabaloo have been said recently on the right of political detainees to appeal to an Advisory Board. I want to tell you about my experience in this Advisory Board.
After about one year of detention, I was asked to the prison main gate at about 4pm, and a statement of notice to say that I had to appear before the Advisory Board the next day, and I was given a two fool-scap paper of so-called charge sheets. I said I wanted to keep these sheets of paper so I could prepare for my next morning’s appearance. They said, “No, you cannot keep it. Just read it and we’ll take it back.”
I said I want to inform my lawyer about this. They said, “No, you have the right to inform your lawyer, but you cannot telephone him now.” I said, “In that case, how do I contact my lawyer?” He said, “That’s the law.”
So the next morning I was called to the High Court in handcuffs and all that to appear before an Advisory Board comprising three persons. A judge called Judge Winslow and two other persons. One is a certain Elias, I think he’s a lawyer, and the other one a Chinese gentleman whose name I cannot remember.
So, on these so-called charge sheets, there were a lot of blank spaces. I asked Judge Winslow what do these blank spaces mean? He said, “Oh, these are charges which are so sensitive that they can be shown only to the Advisory Board but not to you.”
I said, “How the hell can anybody defend himself against a charge that’s not even revealed to him?” I asked him for advice, he just said [shrugs shoulder]. I said, “Is this a mockery of justice or what?” He said, “This is the law.”
You see, the whole thing is a judicial farce. I mean, it’s incredible that anyone has to face this kind of mockery, this kind of so-called justice, and the fact that a High court judge is being put as the chairman of this Advisory Board gives the public an illusion that there is judgement, there is justice. And I told him that if I were a High court judge, I would not lend credence to this mockery by my presence.
Then this Elias threatened me with contempt of court. I was very happy when he with contempt of court, because after all I was already in prison, so threatening me with contempt of court and al that makes no difference to me.
By the way, in my 20 years in prison, I was detained in practically all the prisons in Singapore, except of course the female prison.
In the end, the judge said, “No, no, let the doctor have his say, there’s no question of contempt of court.” So I gave a three-hour statement to debunk all the so-called charges. One of the charges was in fact a false charge: I was charged for being one of the right Fajar students who were charged for sedition. I said, “ As a matter of fact, I didn’t have the privilege to be one of the eight. In fact, I would be flattered to be one of the eight, and that I was not one of the eight. So why should I be imprisoned for allegedly being one of the eight, when these eight were acquitted without being called, and acquitted and defended by Lee Kuan Yew himself, who is now detaining me?”
He said, “This is the law.”
Everything is the law.
So recently you have heard all this so-called rule of law. Now there is detention without trial by ISA [Internal Security Act], a law which makes a mockery of the concept of rule of law. It is a law that is outside the rule of law. Once you are detained under the ISA, you have no legal defence whatsoever.
I tried the habeas corpus twice. On one occasion I succeeded on the technical error on the side of the government—they did not sign my detention order. It was supposed to be signed by a minister, but it was delegated to a civil servant. So on that account the court has to release me on a technical point. So when I was released, there was the Special Branch waiting for me outside Queenstown Prison. I was re-arrested one minute later. It was a mock release. And for that habeas corpus, I was punished and sent to the most hideous of all detention centres, the Central Police Station head office.
That was a place that is not fit to keep animals let alone human beings. The place was so dark, so stinky and so ill-ventilated that you cannot stand inside for more than 24 hours, but I was locked in there for 24 hours a day. And the whole place was infested with bugs. I had a lot of bugs for company. No reading material and the light was so dim that I could hardly see the crease of my hand. So immediately the five of us went on hunger strike, and my ulcer bled and I had to be transferred to hospital. That was the so-called habeas corpus right there you have. Try it at your risk, or be severely punished.
The second time I went for habeas corpus case was when they tried to force me to do manual labour. That was in 1972. They said all detainees should do manual labour as a programme of rehabilitation. I was supposed to do carpentry. So this superintendent told me that it was good for you as a doctor, you try to become more dexterous with your hand. So I said, “You do not have the qualifications to enter a medical college, and here you are telling a doctor what is good for post-graduate education. Are you over-reaching yourself?” He said, “This is the law. You have to be paid 8 cents a day.” So we all went on hunger strike, and some of us went on hunger strike for three months in order to frustrate their attempt to make us labourers like criminals. I went on hunger strike for three weeks before they came in and said, “Okay, we exempt you from that.”
And the women detainees in Moon Crescent Centre went on hunger strike for 130 days, and they were forced-fed. Some of them vomited after being fed milk by the tube inserted forcefully into their oesophagus. One girl vomited and the superintendent forced for wardens to carry her and wiped the floor with her pants. This is the kind of treatment meted to detainees. All these of course suppressed by the press, but this is the thing we all had to go through.
Now all of us had to go through detention in solitary confinement. Solitary confinement according to Lee Kuan Yew himself is a very bad form of torture. I will read to you what Lee Kuan Yew said of solitary confinement: “The biggest punishment a man can receive is total isolation in a dungeon, black and complete withdrawal of all stimuli. That is real torture.” Lee Kuan Yew, January 2008.
Although he knows it is real torture, he had no compunction in meting out this real torture to all detainees without exception. Some of us had to undergo this real torture, not for one day, two days, but for six months. Now under the law, there is a protection for even criminal prisoners from this kind of torture. A criminal prisoner when found guilty of infringing prison rules will be sentenced to solitary confinement for not more than two weeks, because of the obvious mental health effects. But for political detainees, there is no protection.
And Lee Eu Seng, the general manager of Nanyang Zhao Pao, was put into solitary confinement not once but twice, and it is to his credit he withstood that kind of real torture. TT Rajah, a lawyer who was detained for two and half years, was put under solitary confinement for six months. Twice. Said Zahari was put into solitary confinement four times in his long 17 years of detention. It is to our credit that we did not back down despite our difficult ordeal. We stood our ground and held on to our integrity.
Today, they are asking us to be magnanimous. What does magnanimity mean? Only those who have suffered have the moral right, the moral standing to be magnanimous, not the culprit. The culprit can seek forgiveness, if they admit their mistakes and apologise for it. Not for the victims of this torture to seek forgiveness. We are the ones who have to be magnanimous, and we are prepared to be magnanimous provided the culprits admit their mistakes and seek our forgiveness.
In my statement which I released to the press in 1972, through my wife Beatrice Chen, and which was of course suppressed by the newspapers, but was distributed a lot to all student organisations—I said the proper way to settle our case is that you must release us without conditions. Unconditional release. Moreover, you must compensate us for our long detention and also apologise. I said I’m prepared to forgo these two last conditions of having to compensate us and also having to apologise to us because I don’t believe an arrogant man like Lee Kuan Yew would concede easily. On that question of release unconditionally—that we stand firm, I stood firm and had to suffer for two decades. That is the price that we had to pay for our integrity.
In Singapore, we have a situation where the government leaders said they have integrity that has to be sustained by the highest pay in the world, but yet they demand from political opponents and detainees an integrity that has to be sustained by the longest imprisonment in the world. This kind of two types of integrity, to compare them is to compare heaven and earth. Why should anybody has to sacrifice so much just to sustain his integrity and his beliefs? And the government have to reward themselves with so much high pay. This is the immorality of the political situation in Singapore today.
Now, detention without trial is not a peaceful action. It is an act of violence. They come to see you not in the daylight with an invitation card. They come in the morning, 4am. That is the time when decent people sleep, and when political terrorists and tyrants strike. And when you are detained, you are subjected to all kinds of mental and even physical torture. This is not only unique for the 1963 batch, it was also practised in many other batches of detention: 1972, and as late as 1987. When Teo Soh Lung and her group of so-called marxist detainees were subjected to mental and physical torture. … And women lawyers can be subjected to torture. But when these women lawyers came out and issued a statement to describe how they have been tortured, they were again detained and compelled to withdraw their accusation.
What type of rule of law is that when the accuser can be punished by the accused against the government, and compelled to withdraw their accusation? Is it not a rule of law justice turned upside down? Now this is a situation where even the Law Society dare not utter a word of protest. They are so impotent after what they had done to the Law Society in 1987.
Now, Poo Soo Kai has written a very good article on Operation Coldstore. In it, he has revealed a lot of declassified British archive documents, showing how the British and Lee Kuan Yew conspired and collaborated to crush the opposition before the 1963 General Elections. The whole aim of this merger was to crush the opposition before the 1963 elections.
And today, the PAP is standing on high moral ground, demanding human rights in other countries, even demanding the realise of political detainees in Myanmar. But precisely on what moral ground are they standing to have this demand? In examining their past records, they are standing on a pedestal that is leaking with worms and vermin, Let them repent first their own dismal record of human rights and then you may have the moral right to cast aspersions on other people’s lack of human rights.
Poh Soo Kai has also written the last chapter of this book [The Fajar Generation], about the future of Socialism. Many of you may ponder what is the relevance of Socialism in this era. after 50 years when the club was formed, Socialist movements all over the world has suffered a lot of setbacks and even defeats, and some wonder whether we are still relevant. The recent economic crisis, the recent financial crisis, has once again exploded the corruption and immorality of the capitalist system, and feel that human beings should deserve something better than a system that is generated by green and by corruption.
Now some of you may have heard that when you are young you are idealistic, when you’re old you are realistic. Now this is the kind of rubbish that is used by those who have either lost their ideals or have sold their ideals for self-interests. Each should not wither one’s ideals or convictions. If anything, it should only consolidate and make it more resolute. If age has anything to do with it, it is only by way of expression and application of these ideals and convictions having the benefit of a youthful experience. And a life without convictions, without idealism, is a mere meaningless existence, and I’m sure most of you will agree that as human beings, we are worthy of a life much more meaningful than just that.
Thank you.
[Dr Lim Hock Siew is currently 78 years and is a retired physician.
[He remains a staunch socialist.]
[Lee Kuan Yew remains in political office, and now holds the title of Minister Mentor.]
分類題材: 政治_politics , 歷史_history
相關文章
「 支持烏有之鄉！」
烏有之鄉 WYZXWK.COM
您的打賞將用于網站日常運行與維護。
幫助我們辦好網站，宣傳紅色文化！
歡迎掃描下方二維碼，訂閱烏有之鄉網刊微信公眾號
